Author
Topic: Dark Matter and Dark Energy (Read 5130 times)

NEW YORK — All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe.The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend.These mysterious substances are called dark energy and dark matter. Astronomers infer their existence based on their gravitational influence on what little bits of the universe can be seen, but dark matter and energy themselves continue to elude all detection.http://www.space.com/11642-dark-matter-dark-energy-4-percent-universe-panek.html

Do you believe that dark matter and dark energy exist? Would you consider the inference that it does exist a rational, reasonable, and intelligent conclusion even though it cannot be seen, touched or smelled and the evidence for it is significantly lacking?

I would not say I believe they exist. I believe effects are observed. Something is causing this effect. The effect appears to behave as if there were more matter in the universe than we can detect. So it is modeled by dark matter. I expect as physicists learn more the idea will change and more accurately model the universe.

Would you consider the inference that it does exist a rational, reasonable, and intelligent conclusion even though it cannot be seen, touched or smelled and the evidence for it is significantly lacking?

Given that dark matter is a placeholder that explains observed effects, and they only recently started looking into it, yes.

Dark Matter and Dark energy are theories that explain how the observed facts of our universe fit together. Until another, more evidence based theory comes to the forefront and destroys it, its reasonable to accept. I think I would have a problem saying with any serious degree of certainty that dark matter and dark energy are absolute facts, however.

In much the same way, the notions of supernatural deities held sway as the most viable theory to explain the observable facts of our universe for the majority of the time that mankind has existed on this planet. When modern science came along and gave us more facts to work with, and thus a far better theory to work with (which is that the universe exists naturally), all notions of God as a useful explanation were summarily destroyed.

Dark matter and dark energy might be trumped by better theories in the future. That would be fine, because it means we're moving toward truth.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

b) Seeing evidence that the universe was moving in a way that was not representative of the expected amount of baryonic matter we were able to confirm.

This implied that there was some form of mass (or energy - remember, they're the same thing!) that we could not see that was affecting our observations. Hence, 'dark matter'.

No, we don't know what it is - it may not be a unified 'it' at all. We don't know its properties, as we have not directly observed it, and only seen its secondary effects on observations of other things that it can effect. It may be a single phenomenon, or it may be something akin to rogue planets between the stars that have simply escaped their systems and have gone cold (and thus invisible to our detectors, for the most part). Perhaps it's more like the 'Force' - an energy field we simply haven't discovered yet.

However, there is observational evidence to its existence, in just the same way that there is observational evidence for gravity, and yet we lack full comprehension of what gravity is.

Oh, and the best part? Physicists may be wrong. To the best of our knowledge, this is what we know - but if they're proven wrong? They'll gladly toss the theory out.

Can you say that last about God?

Logged

"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one." - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

Do you believe that dark matter and dark energy exist? Would you consider the inference that it does exist a rational, reasonable, and intelligent conclusion even though it cannot be seen, touched or smelled and the evidence for it is significantly lacking?

Everyone can see where you are trying to go with this.

I 'accept' what the scientists in the field say about dark matter and dark energy (or the effects of) because these scientists/physicists in these fields are much more knowledgeable about these things than I am. They may have slight disagreements about some aspects but there aren't millions of them making hugely different claims/variations so I consider it reasonable to accept their findings. BUT...My acceptance of scientists and physicists claims about dark matter doesn't require me to tithe to the dark matter/energy.It doesn't require me to worship or attend worship services for the claims/theory.These scientists aren't telling me that if I don't accept their theories that I will burn and be tortured in a fiery furnace for all of eternity after I die.The scientists aren't making wild, unprovable claims about the dark matter/energy - like it answers prayers, it loves me unconditionally, it created the universe, it made the first man out of dirt, etc.

Ultimately, if I accept their claims about dark matter/energy and tomorrow they say "We were wrong! It is rainbow matter/energy!" or "We were wrong! We don't know!" - then it's no huge loss - I don't spend every second of every day thinking that dark matter/energy is watching me, waiting for me to do something that "offends" it. I would just go about my day like any other day.

a) A flaw in our understanding of gravity at extremely large scales. This has, and is, being tested extensively as does NOT appear to be the case, based on multiple lines of evidence. This would be revolutionary.

b) A new massive (as in: having mass) electromagetically neutral particle or particles. This seems most likely. Some particle models account for these and the LHC may be capable of generating some such particles. They may or may not interact with the strong and weak nuclear forces as well and many neutrino detectors are being upgraded to attempt direct detection. This would be evolutionary.

c) A gravitational interaction between massive objects in different universes on nearby branes, as gravity can move between branes in these models. This would be M-theory model universes, not MWI universes. This would be revolutionary.

Do you believe that dark matter and dark energy exist? Would you consider the inference that it does exist a rational, reasonable, and intelligent conclusion even though it cannot be seen, touched or smelled and the evidence for it is significantly lacking?

Let me ask you the same question with a little different set of actors. Let's imagine there's a dead body with a bullet it its back. All the evidence points to the fact that the bullet could only have been fired from, say, 10 meters away. Therefore the person in question was clearly murdered. You can't see, touch or smell the perpetrator and you have no evidence (other than the dead body and the bullet in it) showing that he or she was there. Would you believe the existence of such a murderer?

The same goes for dark matter and dark energy. The visible matter in the universe simply does not account for everything that's happening in it. Therefore it's safe to conclude there's something we can't see - yet. And it works in not at all mysterious ways. Scientists know how it works, they just don't know exactly what it is. Just as the detectives and forensics in the hypothetical case I mentioned know there is a murderer, they just don't know who he or she is. The end result is visible and measurable, the only unknown is the direct cause. So the 'invisible' stuff was named 'dark' simply because current technology prevents us from seeing it. For now.

By the way, god isn't the answer, unless he's actively trying to destroy his own creation.

When modern science came along and gave us more facts to work with, and thus a far better theory to work with (which is that the universe exists naturally), all notions of God as a useful explanation were summarily destroyed.

Modern science is light years away from ever proving that God does not exist. Among other things, when it can thoroughly demonstrate how matter from non-matter and energy from non-energy and life from non-life came into being, God's existence remains intact.

Modern science is light years away from ever proving that God does not exist. Among other things, when it can thoroughly demonstrate how matter from non-matter and energy from non-energy and life from non-life came into being, God's existence remains intact.

Modern science has no such burden. If you can't prove it does exist, modern science doesn't have to lift a finger. Without evidence, your God theory is equally as plausible as the FSM. But I think what you are doing here is confusing your Christian viewpoint with a deist stance which actually has a small inkling of respectability. Try to remember not to do that. The Christian God is not on par with a deist stance.

But I think you dodged my point in favor of reacting to the last portion of my sentence instead. Do you disagree that with the advent of modern science, it has become a lot more difficult to maintain the belief that a god has a hand in everything? Do you disagree that we now have a lot more facts to work with, and thus can make a better determination than ever before in our history? Do you think it is just as easy NOW as it was a few thousand years ago to think a super-powerful being is responsible for earthquakes, disease, lightning, electricity, wind, rain, orbiting planets, gravity, etc, etc? That is my point. When are we allowed to give the benefit of the doubt and say, 'alright, it's really a lot more reasonable to think this is all natural'? How many more things do we have to discover before you're out of places to hide your God? Are you going to require all of them? Everything?

But yes Biblestudent. You go ahead and hide your God in the corners of scientific ignorance while you avoid the absolute fact that everything science has revealed to us is completely natural and understandable without requiring the intervention of a deity. You pick 3 things where science does not yet have a full understanding and shove your 'Hey, what about an invisible, super powerful man in the sky that loves us all' theory in as if it's a reasonable, reliable answer, when it clearly isn't. 'God' is the answer of someone who is unwilling to do the work, of the lazy and inept, and of the masses who are content to be force fed what to think. Day after day science is accelerating, making new headway toward understanding our universe naturally, and thus eradicating the idiocy of the belief in the Christian God; yet until we figure every little detail out, you just keep on holding out hope that maybe some day... some day... science will find ONE thing for which "God did it" is a more explanatory theory than science and naturalism. Good luck with that. I have a secret for you, however, that may save you a bunch of time and effort. Come in close now... closer... there, that's close enough... You're gonna lose.

It is a matter of time before all notions of god(s) dies and we look back on people with your mind set with naught but confusion and pity.

Sorry for the pissed off tone on this one. I had to overhear a conversation at work today between 2 religious freaks who were talking about the whole Chik-fil-A thing and how God is on their side and how awful gay marriage is, and I wasn't able to weigh in without creating a shit load of tension in the workplace. The sooner the whole religion dies, the better. I hate the bible belt.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

c) A gravitational interaction between massive objects in different universes on nearby branes, as gravity can move between branes in these models. This would be M-theory model universes, not MWI universes. This would be revolutionary.

That's a neat little idea. Never heard of that one before, but it makes some sense.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Do you believe that dark matter and dark energy exist? Would you consider the inference that it does exist a rational, reasonable, and intelligent conclusion even though it cannot be seen, touched or smelled and the evidence for it is significantly lacking?

When modern science came along and gave us more facts to work with, and thus a far better theory to work with (which is that the universe exists naturally), all notions of God as a useful explanation were summarily destroyed.

Modern science is light years away from ever proving that God does not exist. Among other things, when it can thoroughly demonstrate how matter from non-matter and energy from non-energy and life from non-life came into being, God's existence remains intact.

The funniest thing is the fact that light year is not a measure of time but a measure of length. Just chiming in a bit.

Anyway, scientists are years and years away from proving an awful lot of things - most of them we're not even aware of. And if it weren't for science, the OP wouldn't even know about the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Which is something I find rather funny.

I just found it interesting that the scientific community can infer the existence of something that the article stated may be "invisible" and no one is calling them a bunch of deluded lunatics.

There is direct (and plentiful) evidence of something that's doing something very specific, measurable and detectable. When you see a murdered person but no murderer, that murderer is effectively invisible to you. A detective claiming that such a person exists would hardly be called a deluded lunatic, would he? Some murders even go unsolved but people claiming that the perpetrators of such acts exist (because there are corpi delicti, the effects of their actions) aren't deluded in the least. There is an effect. We can't see what exactly causes it, but we know it has a cause. And that's the thing we're trying to detect - just like detectives who try to find a particular murderer. Which part of that is so hard to understand?

You have been presented with evidence that directly contradicts your claims. Now what?

I also find it rather insulting that you keep repeating the same thing when you've been proven wrong. People who responded to your post took the time to read what you wrote and present their arguments. Please, be polite enough to return the favour.

Modern science is light years away from ever proving that God does not exist. Among other things, when it can thoroughly demonstrate how matter from non-matter and energy from non-energy and life from non-life came into being, God's existence remains intact.

Modern science has no such burden.

I never said it did. You suggested it had.

Quote

If you can't prove it does exist, modern science doesn't have to lift a finger.

Again, I never said it did. You are the one who commented that it had.

Quote

Do you disagree that with the advent of modern science, it has become a lot more difficult to maintain the belief that a god has a hand in everything?

Absolutely not. Science presents evidence that could point to God just as easily as it could to non-God. Common descent is a great example.

Quote

Do you disagree that we now have a lot more facts to work with, and thus can make a better determination than ever before in our history?

Yes, I completely disagree.

Quote

Do you think it is just as easy NOW as it was a few thousand years ago to think a super-powerful being is responsible for earthquakes, disease, lightning, electricity, wind, rain, orbiting planets, gravity, etc, etc?

Yes. There is no evidence regarding the existence of any of these things you listed which precludes God.

Do you believe that dark matter and dark energy exist? Would you consider the inference that it does exist a rational, reasonable, and intelligent conclusion even though it cannot be seen, touched or smelled and the evidence for it is significantly lacking?

There is direct (and plentiful) evidence of something that's doing something very specific, measurable and detectable. When you see a murdered person but no murderer, that murderer is effectively invisible to you. A detective claiming that such a person exists would hardly be called a deluded lunatic, would he?

No, because the detective would be basing his/her assessment on something a lot stronger than a hypothetical based on inference. Your analogy uses the type of evidence (ie. a real dead body) that does not exist when discussing dark matter or dark energy. You are far from making an apples-to-apples comparison here.

Quote

You have been presented with evidence that directly contradicts your claims. Now what?

I assume you are referring to your analogy of the murdered body and the detective? If so, again, you are not making a parallel analogy because you are using verifiable and undeniable evidence that does not exist when inferring dark matter or dark energy.

Quote

I also find it rather insulting that you keep repeating the same thing when you've been proven wrong. People who responded to your post took the time to read what you wrote and present their arguments. Please, be polite enough to return the favour.

Kindly spare me this slop. It is probably the most unoriginal and obvious attempt to try and poke holes in the credibility of a theist in this forum. It's old. It's boring. It only hinders the discussion. Some of the replies didn't even acknowledge the intention of the OP but instead drifted off in another direction.....and other comments were not worded in such a way as suggest a reply was expected or even desired.

Do you disagree that we now have a lot more facts to work with, and thus can make a better determination than ever before in our history?

Yes, I completely disagree.

Quote

Do you think it is just as easy NOW as it was a few thousand years ago to think a super-powerful being is responsible for earthquakes, disease, lightning, electricity, wind, rain, orbiting planets, gravity, etc, etc?

Yes. There is no evidence regarding the existence of any of these things you listed which precludes God.

^^^^ face palm

If we can explain something without resorting to a supernatural being, why go there? Don't you get that when people prayed to gods, sacrificed animals and people to gods, did all kinds of sacred rituals demanded by gods, they kept on dying of smallpox?

No religion anywhere in the world was exempt from this horribly disfiguring, fatal illness. By some estimates 60-90% of native populations in the Americas died of smallpox after being infected by the (Christian) Spanish explorers.

But scientific investigations into smallpox enabled us to eliminate the disease entirely. The whole world became free of smallpox within a few years of the development of the vaccine. After centuries of suffering, with millions of deaths, people nowadays don't even know what smallpox is. God did not cure smallpox. People using science did. If we were just relying on god, we would still have smallpox. Do you disagree?

In places where they are limited by poverty and isolation to relying on prayer, no matter what god they are praying to, people are still suffering and dying from treatable conditions. Why would that be, if there was a god who wanted us to believe in him? Why is it that "god" is equivalent to "no god" in real life situations? Why does "prayer to a god" and "no prayer to a god" yield exactly the same result?

An undetectable god who stands around for millions of years doing nothing is pretty much the same as no god at all. So why do you need to add him into the equation? It's like adding zero and then just subtracting it again in an algebraic operation. Why do it?

I just found it interesting that the scientific community can infer the existence of something that the article stated may be "invisible" and no one is calling them a bunch of deluded lunatics.

Religious fundamentalists certainly DO

Logged

Organized religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash the kneecaps of anyone who doesn't show proper deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

Modern science is light years away from ever proving that God does not exist. Among other things, when it can thoroughly demonstrate how matter from non-matter and energy from non-energy and life from non-life came into being, God's existence remains intact.

Modern science has no such burden.

I never said it did. You suggested it had.

How is your original comment not suggesting science has the burdon of disproving god when you say "Modern science is light years away from ever proving that God does not exist?"

Logged

Organized religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash the kneecaps of anyone who doesn't show proper deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

When modern science came along and gave us more facts to work with, and thus a far better theory to work with (which is that the universe exists naturally), all notions of God as a useful explanation were summarily destroyed.

I did not initiate any discussion that suggested science had any burden of disproving God...nor do I recall having EVER said that. JeffPT commented that science had "summarily destroyed" any notions of God. I simply replied that it was light years away from doing so. I did not initiate any discussions about science having any burdens with disproving God.

Science has certainly destroyed any need for god as an explanation for anything. If you are going to claim your invisible, undetectable god who does nothing is somewhere in the universe, you can put everything that you can't disprove in there, too: Vishnu, Zeus, Thor, Shango, Og the Volcano Spirit, Count Chocula, Santa Claus, Mr. Spock, Barbarella, Jack's Magic Beans, Reasonable Republicans.

They are all invisible, or don't want to be seen because that would mess up your faith, or only act through human beings, or can't be detected by skeptics, or are on an extended vacation. Or nonexistent and imaginary.

Once you know that your parents got your Xmas presents from the store (or not if you are a JW kid) do you still believe that Santa brings them on a sleigh? Why would you?

Of course, Santa could still somehow be magically responsible for the presents, and nobody can prove that he isn't involved. But why put him into the equation when you have a perfectly reasonable non-magical explanation? That's what I don't get. What is the point of adding in a god?